V. I. Lenin

Replies to Plekhanov’s and Axelrod’s Remarks on the Article “The Agrarian Programme of Russian Social-Democracy”{33}

Published:Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1977,

      Moscow,Volume 41,

      pages53.2-69.1.Translated:Yuri SdobnikovTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaCopyleft:V. I. Lenin Internet Archive (www.marxists.org)
      © 2004

      Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the
      terms of theGNU Free Documentation License.

“4.establishment of peasant committees:

Plekhanov.NB. Please note this:expropriation(No. 3) does not rule outredemption;redemptiondoes not rule outexpropriation(proof superfluous);
	    “redemption, etc.”  (No. 2) is nothing but redemption—“etc.”
	    should be deleted. The words in brackets could be replaced by these
	    (by redemption, if after 1861 the land [and not lands] (No. 1) has
	    changed hands by sale). This will make it clear that in other cases
	    restitution shall take place without compen sation for the present
	    owners. Where the land has changed hands by inheritance, ordonation, orexchange, there should be no
	    redemption. I think we shall have time to alter this.

Axelrod.I agree. P.A.

No.1. Once you have “lands” in the programme it is bad grammar to
	    say “land” in brackets.

No.2. “etc.” includes exchange of lands, and servi tude for land,
	    and redemarca tion,etc. It would therefore be quite wrong
	    to delete it.

No.3. “Expropriation” nor mally impliesdeprivationof
	    property, that is, taking away without compensation. So it is not
	    all that strange to contrast it with redemp tion as it may appear to
	    the author of the remarks.

“Itis our duty to fight against all remnants of serf-owning
relationships—that is beyond doubt to a Social-Demo crat—and since
these relationships are most intricately interwoven with bourgeois
relationships, we areobligedto penetrate into the very core, if I may
use the word, of this confusion, undeterred by the complexity of the
task.”{2}

Pl e k h  a n o v.

There is no
need to ask forpermissionto
obtain knowledge of the core.

“...theworkers’ section contains demands directed against thebourgeoisie, whereas the peasants’ section contains demands directed
against theserf-owning landlords(against the feudal lords, I would
say, if the applicability of this term to our landed nobility were not sodisputable1)).

1)Personally I am inclined to decide this question in the
affirmative, but in
the given instance, it is of course neither the place nor the time for
substantiating or even for proposing this solution, since what we are concerned
with now is defence of the draft agrarian programme prepared collectively by
the entire Editorial
Board.”{3}

Axelrod.NB. I do think that such hints at differences could be waived in aprogrammepamphlet.

“However,to try to determine in advance, before the final outcome of the
struggle, in the course of that struggle, that we shall perhaps fail to
achieve theentiremaximum, means lapsing into sheer
=

philistinism.”{4}

Pl e k h a n o v.

“Try to determine” that we shall fail to achieve the
entire maximum, etc.—that is very ineptly phrased.
I
propose to substitute for it the phrase
I wrote in the
text.{5}I request avoteon this proposal.Motive: fear of gibes from
opponents.

Ialso propose a voteon my proposal todeletethe
author’s considerations about Russian feudalism.Motive:such
reasoning is irrelevant in a general, you might say,editorial,
article. The author’s reservations merely suggest adifference ol
opinionon the Editorial Board.

Ax e l r o d.

I already spoke out in this vein above.

Abit of tact would suggest to the author of the remarks that it is highly
improper to insist on avoteof thestylisticchanges he
proposes (perhaps for the worse?). It is equally ridiculous to fear that over
the minor question of “feudal ism” (the Martynovs?) will raise a cry
about a “difference of opinion”. My statement was a very general
one.

“‘Ourmovement’is the Social-Democratic labour movement. The peasantmassescannot just be ‘brought’into it:
that is not problematic, butimpossible, and there was never any
question of it. However, the peasant massescannot but be broughtinto
the ‘movement’ against all the remnants of the serf-owning system (including the
=

autocracy).”{6}

Plekhanov.I propose that
instead of the words: “peasant masses (in the phrase about
“bringing in”) we write: thepeasant mass as such, i.e.,as an estate, and, moreover, regard edas a single whole, etc.

Irequest a vote on this.

Axelrod.I agree. P.A.

See28 reverse.{7}

“Wemust spread the idea far and wide that only in a republic can the
decisive battle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie take place; we mustcreateand consolidate republican traditions among all the Russian
revolutionaries and among the broadest possible masses of Russian Workers; we
should express through this “republic” slogan that we will carry to
the end the struggle to dernocratise the state system, without looking
back.”{8}

Pl e k h a n o v.

I advise the deletion of the words: we must spread the idea that only
in a republic can the decisive battle between the proletariat and the
bourgeoisie take place (I request a vote on this).I am not at all sure
that in Britain, say, political development must go through a republic. The monarchy there will hardly be a hindrance to the workers, so that its removal may
turn out to be aresultinstead of apreliminary conditionof
the triumph of socialism.

Ax e l r o d.

In favour of the proposal. P.A.

Theexample of Britain is not very apt because of her exceptional position. To
compare Russia with Britainjust nowis to sow great confusion among
the public. The “necessity” of a republic is indicated by the
remarks of Marx (1875) and Engels (1891) concerning the demand for a republic in
Germany{34}—but there can always be exceptions.

“Hence,for the sake of simplicity, the entire content of Clause 4 may be
briefly expressed as ’restitution of the cut-off lands’. The question arises:
how did the idea of this demand originate? It arose as the direct outcome of the
general and fundamental proposition that we must assist the peasants and urge
them to destroy all remnants of the serf-owning system as completely as
possible. This meets with ’general approval’, doesn’t it? Well then, if
you do agree to follow this road, make an effort to proceed along it
independently; don’t make it necessary to drag you; don’t let the
’unusual’ appearance of this road frighten you;don’t be put out by the fact that in many places you will find no beaten
track at all, and that you will have to crawl along the edge of precipices,
break your way through thickets, and leap across chasms. Don’t complain of
the poor road: these complaints will be futile whining, for you should have
known in advance that you would be moving, not along a highway that has been
graded and levelled by all the forces of social progress, but along paths,
through out-of-the-way places and back-alleys which do have a way out, but from
which you, we or anyone else will never find a direct, simple, and easy way
out—’never’, i.e., whilst these disappearing, but so slowly disappearing,
out-of-the-way places and back-alleys continue to exist.

“Butif you do not want to stray into these back-alleys, then say so
frankly and don’t try to get away by
phrase-mongering.”{9}

Pl e k h a n o v.

I put to the vote the question of crossing out this page. It lends a
somewhat feuilleton character to the reasoning, which in itself is clear and
consistent. In order to put forward the demand for restitution of the cut-off
lands, there is no need “to crawl along the edge of precipices”,
etc. This imagery suggests that the author himself has not quite tied in the
“cut-off lands” with his own orthodoxy.

Ax e l r o d.

I propose we leave out this page, starting from the words: “This
meets...” to the end of the following page
(47). P.A.

Iput to the vote the question of whether it isproperto use suchcanaan-toned remarks in respect of a colleague. And where is it going
to get us if wea l lstart cudgelling each otherin that way??

“Directsurvivals of the corvée system, recorded times without
number in
all the economic surveys of Russia, are maintained, not by any special law which
protects them, but by the actually existing land relationships. This is so to
such an extent that witnesses testifying before the well-known Valuyev
=

Commission{35}openly stated that serf-ownership would undoubtedly
have been revived had it notbeen directly prohibited by law. Hence, one of two things:
either you refrain altogether from touching upon the land relationships between
the peasants and the landlords—in which case all the remaining questions
are solved very ’simply’, but then you will also be ignoring the main source of
all the survivals of the serf-owning economy in the country side, and will
’simply’ be avoiding a burning question bearing on the most vital interests of
the feudal landlords and the enslaved peasantry, a question which tomorrow or
the day after may easily become one of the most pressing social and political
issues in Russia. Or else you want also to touch upon the source of the
’obsolete forms of economic bondage’ represented by the land
relationships—in which case you must reckon with the fact that these
relationships are so complex and entangled that they do not actually permit of
any easy or simple solution. Then, if you are not satisfied with the concrete
solutiQn we have proposed for this complex question, you no longer have therightto get away with a general ’complaint’ about its complexity, butmustattempt to cope with it independently, and propose some other
concrete solution.

“Theimportance of the cut-off lands in present-day peasant farming is a
question of
reality.”{10}

Pl e k  h a n o v.

I would advise throwing out all the reasoning about
“simplicity” and “non simplicity”, and continuing the
article with the words: “The imporrtance of the cut-off lands....”
The article will gain therefrom, because this whole passage spoils it bybeing terribly(??)

dragged out. I propose a vote.

Thereasoning about simplicity, as a summing up of the foregoing (and as a
reply to ahostof remarks made by those even who sympathise with
us), is not at all superfluous, and I suggest we leave it in.

“Labourrent makes for stagnation in cultivation techniques and for
stagnation inallsocial and economic relation ships in the
countryside, since this labour rent hampers the development of a money economy
and the differentiation of the peasantry, disembarrasses the landlord
(comparatively) of the stimulus of competition (instead of raising the
technical level, he reduces the share of the sharecropper; incidentally,this reduction has been recorded in a number of localities for many years
of the post-Reform period), ties the peasant to the land, thereby checking
the progress of migration, outside employment,
etc."{11}

Pl e k h a n o v.

I propose to delete the words: “and the differ
entiation of the peasantry”; they couldbiasthe reader against
a measure which in itself merits every approval. If you insist on leaving these
words in, elaborate on them, explaining (even if only in a footnote) what you
mean by them. I request a vote.

How?Whom? Why?—this baffles all understanding.

Furthermore:what means “comparatively disembarrasses”? The word
“comparatively” does not fit in here.

It’squite plain. It means:
it disembarrassesrelativeto the current state in Russia (and not
as compared with, say, America).

“Andin general: once it is generally acknowledged that the cut-off lands
are one of the principal roots of the labour-rent system—and this system
is a direct survival of serf-ownership which retards the development of
capitalism—how can one doubt that the restitution of the cut-off lands
will undermine the labour-rent system and accelerate social and economic
=

progress?”{12}

Pl e k h a n o v.

That is just why there is no need to go to such lengths to prove this.

“Asfar as I can judge,allobjections ’against the cut-off lands’
fit into one or another of these four groups; moreover, most of the objectors
(including Martynov) have answered all four questions in the negative,
considering the demand for the restitution of the cut-off lands wrong in
principle, politically inexpedient, practically unattainable, and logically
=

inconsistent.”{14}

Pl e k h a n o v.

I propose that Martynov should be deleted: there’s much too much of him
stuck in all over the place.

Ax e l r o d.

Indeed, des Gu-
ten, i.e., Martynov, mehr als
zu
viel.{15}P.A.

Seep. 28
reverse.{16}

Martynovhas cited argu-
ments reiterated by very
many of our friends. It
would be highlytactlessto
let these arguments go, with out replying to them, and to refrain from
mentioning Martynov, when he speaks to the point.

“Andwe shall not be in the least contradicting ourselves if we delete from
our programme the struggle against the remnants of the serf-owning system in the
subsequent historical period when the special features of the present social and
political ‘juncture’ will have disappeared, when the peasants, let us suppose,
will have been satisfied by insignificant concessions made to an insignificant
number of property-owners and begin definitely to ’snarl’ at the
proletariat. Then, we shall probably also have to delete from our programme the
struggle against the autocracy, for it is quite inconceivable that the peasants
will succeed in ridding themselves of the most repulsive and grievous form of
feudal oppressionbeforepolitical liberty has been
attained.”{17}

Pl e k h a n o v.

I propose wethrow outthe part starting with the
words: “And we shall not be...” and ending with: ’%..has been
attained.” Instead ofreinforcing, theyweakenthe
conviction carried by the foregoing.

Ax e l r o d.

In favour. P.A.

Thesewords should stand, for they arise out of anecessaryprecaution. Other wise, we could later be very well accused of lack of
foresight.

“Itmay be argued: ’However slowly the labour-rent farming may be yielding
to the pressure of capitalism, still it is yielding; it is, moreover, doomed to
disappear complete ly; large-scale labour-rent farming is giving way to, andwill be directly replaced by, large-scale capitalist farming. What you want is
to accelerate the elimination of serf-owning by a measure which in essence
amounts to the splitting-up (partial, but nevertheless splitting-up) of
large-scale farms. Are you not thereby sacrificing the interests of the future
to the interests of the present? For the sake of the problematic possibility of
a peasant revolt against serf-owning in the immediate future, you are placing
obstacles in the way of a revolt of the agricultural proletariat against
capitalism in the more or less distant future!’

“Thisargument, however convincing it may seem at first glance, is very
=

one-sided....”{18}

Pl e k h a n o v.

It’s pretty unconvincing even at first glance. It reeks of such wild
pedantry, that the least said of it the better: I blush for the
Social-Democrats. This sense of shame is the stronger now that thousands of
Russian
peasants arerising upto liquidate the old order. I request a vote on
the proposal to declare this argument unconvincing even at first glance.

Ax e l r o d.

I believe we should throw out the compliment to our opponents à la
Martynov.
P.A.

Ithink it is ridiculous to see this as a “compliment to our
opponents”, when they are being refuted (this is even actually wrong,
because the argument was repeated in their letters byIskra’sclosest friends). Besides, there’s no point at all in theabuseheaped on them by the author of the remarks.

“....thiscould not fail to exert the profoundest influenceon
the spirit of protest and the independent struggle of the entire rural
working
population”.{19}

Pl e k h a n o v.

What does “independent struggle” mean?

SeeBelgium in April
1902.{36}She provides the answer to this “difficult” question.

“Andin order to facilitate for our farm labourers and semi-farm labourers
the subsequent transition to socialism, it is highly important that the
socialist party begin to
‘stand up’ atoncefor the small peasants, and do ‘everything
possible’ for them, never refusing a hand in solving theurgent and complex ‘alien’ (non-proletarian) problems, and helping the
working and exploited masses to regard the socialist party as their leader
and
representative.”{20}

Pl e k h a n o v.

Why are the words “everything possible” in
inverted commas (“quotes”)? I don’t understand. Besides, the
question of “semi-farm labourers” is not at all an alien oneforthe proletariat. It is now extremely bad policy to use this word,
even in quotes.

Isit so hard to understand that everyone has his own way of using quotes?
Perhaps the author of the remarks will want to

“v o t e”

on the quotes as well? I shouldn’t be at all surprised!

“Itis the Russian bourgeoisie who were ‘late’ with what is reallytheirtask of sweeping away all the remnants of the old regime, and we
must and shall rectify this omission until it has been rectified, until we have
won political liberty, as long as the position of the peasants continues to
foster dissatisfaction among practically the whole of educated bourgeois society
(as is the case in Russia), instead of fostering a feeling of conservative
self-satisfaction among it on account of the ’indestructibility’ of what is
supposed to be the strongest bulwark against socialism (as is the dase in the
West where this self-satisfaction is displayed by all the parties of Order,
ranging from the agrarians and conservatives pur sang, through the liberal and
free-thinking bourgeois, to even as far—without offence to Messrs. the
Chernovs and theVestnik Russkoi
Revolutsii!{37}—to even
as far as the fashionable ‘critics of Marxism’ in the agrarian
=

question).”{21}

Pl e k h a n o v.I strongly advisethat we throw out here the words
“Vesinik Rueskot Revolutsii”. They stand alongside
Chernov’s name, and we could be accused of carelessly bringing the two
together, giving a hint, and almost divulging a pseudonym. This should be
avoided at all costs.

Iagree, but I prefer to throw out “the Chernovs”.

“Nationalisationof the land is a different matter. This demand (if it is
interpreted in the bourgeois sense, and notin the socialist) does actually ’go further’ than the demand for the
restitution of the cut-off lands, and in principle we fully endorse it. It
goes without saying that, when the revolutionary moment comes, we shall not
fail to advance
it.”{22}

Pl e k h a n o v.

I quite ad here to this
remark.{38}That’s the
“crux” of the matter.

Ax e l r o d.

I don’t quite understand. Above you gave an excellent definition
of the social-revolutionary character of the agrarian programme; besides,
nationalisation of the land is now anti-revolutionary even as a slogan for anuprising. I agree with Berg’s proposal.

It’sa pity the “adherent” quite forgot that the remark related to
theuneditedarticle. Just a little attention would have spared him
this amusing mistake.

“Butour present programme is being drawn up, not only for the period of
revolutionary insurrection, not even so much for that period, as for the period
of political slavery, for the period that precedes political liberty. However,
in this period the demand for the nationalisation of the land ismuch
lessexpressive of the immediate tasks of the democratic movement in the
meaning of a struggle against the serf-owning
system.”{23}

Pl e k h a n o v.

The point made above was that our agrarian programme is a
social-revolutionary one.

Nationalisationof the land in a police state would mean a fresh and vast
increase of that state. That is why it is not right to say, as the author says
here, “much less expressive”, etc. One measure isrevolutionaryand the otherreactionary.

Ax e l r o d.

Plekhanov’s proposal coincides with the meaning of
Berg’s remarks, and mine on the preceding page.

Thisis wrong. Nationalisation is not always “reactionary”,
regardless of time and character. That’s an absurdity.

Ifthe authors of the remarks refuse to take thetrouble to give a precise formulation to the amendments, even in asecondreading (although this demand was specially accepted and
communicated to all)—there will he endless delays through votes on
“changes” in general (and then on the text of the changes??). It
would be better to worry less about the author of a signed articleexpressinghimself in his own manner.

“Thatis why we think that, on the basis of the present social system, the
maximum demand in our agrarian programme should not go beyond the democratic
revision of the Peasant Reform. The demand for nationalisation of the land,
while quite valid in principle and quite suitable at certain moments, is
politically inexpedient at the present
moment.”{24}

Pl e k h a n o v.I agreewith Berg’s
remark.{39}But I propose
this wording: in a police state,nationalisationof the land is harmful,
and in a constitutional one it will bea partof the demand for the
nationalisation ofall the meansof production.I request a vote.

Ax e l r o d.

I agree. P.A.

Seep. 75
reverse.{25}

“Suchcomposition of the courts would be a guarantee both of their
democratic nature and free expression of the different class interests of the
various sections of the rural
population.”{26}

Pl e k h a n o v.

The style
here is terrible. I propose a vote
on improving It.

Ax e l r o d.

How?

A“terrible” concept of the “voting” game! It looks as if
we have nothing better to do!

“...itis well known that in our countryside rent is more often of a serf-owning
than a bourgeois nature; it is much more “money” rent (i.e., a
modified form of feudal rent) than capitalist rent (i.e., the surplus over and
above the profit of the employer). Reductions of rent would therefore directly
help to replace serf-owning forms of farming by capitalist
forms.”{27}

Pl e k h a n o v.

The author romisedn otto speak of Russian eudaism (see above), but
has failed to keep his promise. That’s a pity. I request avoteon the proposal to delete here the wordfeudal(rent).

That’snot true. If you do take a look above, you will find that
the author “promised” nothing of the sort. Once the author has made
the specific reservation that this is not ageneral opinion, the
quibbling here is doubly tactless.

“Eventhe autocracy has therefore been obliged more and more frequently to
institute a special fund (utterly trifling, of course, and going more to line
the pockets of embezzlers of state property and bureaucrats than for the relief
of the famine-stricken) ’for the cultural and charitable needs of the village
communes’. We, too, cannot but demand, among other democratic reforms, that such
a fund be established. That can scarcely be
disputed.”{28}

Pl e k h a n o v.

This passage here about the “autocracy” isextremely inappropriate. After all, why should we look to It for
example? As if we are unable to make any proposals without looking to it for a
cue?

Therestitution to the peasants should be motivated by it being a revolutionary
measure, rectifying an “injustice” which is not only still
in everyone’s mind, but which largely served to ruin the Russian peasant
(cf. Martynov).

P.S.When the French émigrés demanded their billion (atthe time of the
Restoration){40}they said nothing about charity. They
had a better understanding of the class struggle.

Ipropose a vote on the pro-
posal to
rewrite this passage.

Ax e l r o d.

Cf. Plekhanov’s remark to
p. 90{41}Read that and these remarks carefully
and you will agree with them. P.A.

Thate v e nthe autocracy has been obliged to go in for charity (in
the small. est way) isa  f a c t,

fear of reference to which is rather
strange. That this is put forward as an “example”, is a “poor
invention” by a man who wants to quibble.

“But,then—the objection
is raised—this tributecannotbe returned in full. Quite so
(just as the cut-off lands cannot be restituted in
full).”{29}

Pl e k h a n o v.

Why can’t the cut-off lands be restituted in full? The programme says
nothing about it.

Icall everyone’s attention to the fact that the meaning of the paragraph
we adopted has been changed here.

Ax e l r o d.

Why do you restrict and weaken a principled decision by an insertion?

That’sabsolutely wrong. Lenin’s insertion in his article does not
alter the meaning ofwhat the programme says, andc a n n o tdo
so. The author of the remarks has forgotten the elementary truth that “it
is the law, and not the motives of the law, that is subject to application”.

“Actually,of course, the annulment of collective liability (Mr. Witte may
manage to put this particular reform through before the revolution), the
abolition of division into social-estates, freedom of movement, and the right
for each individual peasant freely to dispose of his land will rapidly and
inevitably bring about the removal of the burden of taxation and serf-bondage
that the land commune to a three-fourths extent constitutes at the present
time. But this result will only prove the correctness of our views on the
village commune, prove how incompatible it is with the entire social and
economic development of
capitalism.”{30}

Pl e k h a n o v.

There is now talk of its destruction. The relevant phrase should therefore
be changed.

“Therefore”has nothing to do with it. The “talk” has been going on for
quite sometime, andeven if it does lead to some action, still nothing need be
altered there.

Ipropose that instead of “capitalism” we say: “with all the social and
economic development of our time”.Motive: this will spare us any
“demagogic criticism” by the proponents of the commune.

Ifind this fear of “demagogy” absolutely unwarranted, because
these gentlemen will always come up with similarly “badcriticism”.

“Tothis we reply that it does not at all follow from our formulation that
every peasant must necessarily demand that a separate plot of land be allotted
to him. What does follow is only liberty to sell the land; moreover, the
preferential right of the commune members to purchase land that is being
sold does
not run counter to this
liberty.”{31}

Pl e k h a n o v.

I quite agree with this
remark,{42}and propose that it be put to the vote.

Ax e l r o d.

In favour.

“Iagree” with what related to a deleted passage??!!?? A very fine
proposal for a “vote”, indeed!

“Thisobjection would be groundless. Our demands do not destroy the
association but, on the contrary, set up in place of the archaic (de facto
semi-feudal) power of the commune over the muzhik, the power of amodernassociation over its members who join of their own accord. Nor,
in particular, is our formulation at variance with the recognition, f or
instance, of fellow members’ having the pre-emptive right, on certain terms, to
buy the land put up for sale by a fellow member.”

Pl e k h a n o v.

I don’t agree with this. This right would merely depreciate the peasant’s
land.

Asfor collective liability, it has artially already been abol iso ,and the
rest will be abolished by Mr. Witte any day now.

Contradiction.I fail to under stand: on the one hand, Ifreelyenter an association andfreelywithdraw from
it. On the other,the commune has a pre-emptive right to buy my land.There’s a
contradiction in this.

Theauthor of the remarks overdoes his hostility to the commune. On this point
great care must be taken to keep out of the embrace of Messrs. A. Skvortsov
& Co. (into which the author of the remarks falls).On certain
terms, the right of preemption may increase insteadof decreasing the value of the land. My expression is deliberately broader and
more general, whereas the author of the remarks is in too much of a hurry to cut
the Gordian knot. By carelessly “denying” the commune (as an
association) we may easily spoil all our “good will” to the
peasant. After all, the commune is also connect ed with the conventional type ofsettlement, and so on, and only the A. Skvortsovs “remake”
this in their projects with the stroke of a pen.

“Toclear the way for the free development of the class struggle in the
countryside, it is necessary to remove all remnants of serfdom, which nowoverliethe beginnings of capitalist antagonisms among the rural
population, and keep them from
developing.”{32}

Pl e k h a n o v.

This is the
first time I see the wordantagonismused in theplural.

Theauthor of the remarks should not imagine that he is past seeing
anything for the first time.

Thisalone is made fully clear by the remarks of the “author of the
remarks”. If he set himself the task of making iti m p o s s i b l efor comrades who disagree with him, even on trifling
matters, to work together with him on the board, he is rapidly and very surely
moving towards that noble goal. But if he does reach it, he himself should bear
the consequences.

(1)The remarks are written in such a careless manner that no effort has even
been made to compare what there was before and what there is after the
corrections.

(2)In fact, the list of corrections has simply beenthrown out!
“Don’t buck me.

(3)Hardlyany of the alterationsproposed by the author of the remarks
has been formulated by him personally—contraryto the spec if ted
con d i t i o nadopted of necessity to avoid intolerable delays.

(4)The tone of the remarks is deliberately abusive. If I adopted such a tone in
“analysing” Plekhanov’s article on the programme (i.e.,
hispersonal “a r t I c ˜!C and not the draft of a general
statement, a general programme, etc.) that would at once be the end of our
collaboration. And so I “put to the vote”: are members of the
board to be allowed toprovokeother members into doing so?

(5)It is the summit of tactlessness to use iio.ti n g ato
interfere in the very manner in which the members of the board express
themselves.

Theauthor of the remarks puts me in mind of a coachman who thinks that to steer
well, the horses have to be reined in and brought up as often and as hard as
possible. Of course, I am nothing more than a horse, oneofthe horses
of the coachman—Plekhanov—but even the most harassed horse may throw
off the much too spirited coachman.

{1}See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 112.—Ed.

{2}See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 116.—Ed.

{3}Ibid., p. 118.—Ed.

{4}See present edition. Vol. 6, p. 120.—Ed.

{5}Plekhanov proposed the following rewording: “However, to stop
ourselves, before the final outcome of the struggle, in the course of that
struggle, on the strength of the consideration....”—Ed.

{6}See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 120.—Ed.

{7}See preceding reply to Plekhanov’s remark.—Ed.

{8}See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 122.—Ed.

{9}See present edition, Vol. 6, pp. 128–29.—Ed.

{10}See present edition, Vol. 6, pp. 129–30.—Ed.

{11}* See present edition, Vol. 6, pp. 131–32.—Ed.

{12}Ibid., p. 32.—Ed.

{13}Lenin means the beginning of Chapter VII of his article (ibid.,
p. 132).—Ed.

{14}Ibid., p. 133.—Ed.

{15}Too much of a good thing.—Ed.

{16}A reference to Lenin’s reply to Plekhanov’s remark on p. 55 of
this volume.—Ed.

{17}See present edition, Vol. 6, pp. 134–35.—Ed.

{18}See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 135.—Ed.

{19}Ibid., p. 136.—Ed.

{20}See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 136.—Ed.

{21}Ibid., pp. 137–38.—Ed.

{22}See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 139.—Ed.

{23}Ibid., pp. 139–40.—Ed.

{24}* See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 140.—Ed.

{25}A reference to Lenin’s reply to Plekhanov’s remark on p. 63 of
this volume.—Ed.

{26}See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 142.—Ed.

{27}See present edition. Vol. 6, p. 143.—Ed.

{28}Ibid., p. 144.—Ed.

{29}See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 145.—Ed.

{30}Ibid., p. 146.—Ed.

{31}See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 147.—Ed.

{32}See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 148.—Ed.

{33}G. V. Plekhanov’s and P. B. Axelrod’s remarks on Lenin’s article “The
Agrarian Programme of Russian Social-Democracy” were written on the back
of the original between April 20 and May 1 (May 3 and 14), 1902. Lenin’s
replies were also written on the back of the original on May 1 (14), 1902,
at the same time as his letter to Plekhanov (see present edition, Vol. 34,
p. 103); the concluding part of Lenin’s replies (pp. 68–69) was written onseparate sheets appended to the original of the article. Each of the
replies was preceded by an extract from the article to which the remarks
referred. Lenin used thin lines to underscore Plekhanov’s text.

p. 53

{34}A reference to Karl Marx’sCritique of the Gotha Programme(see Marx and Engels,Selected Works, Vol. II, Moscow, 1962
pp. 13–48) and Engels’s “Zur Kritik des sozialdemokratischen

Programmentwurfes 1891” (Criticism of the Draft Social-Democratic
Programme of 1891) (Marx/Engels,Werke, Diets Verlag, Berlin,
1962, Bd. 22, S. 272-91).

p. 56

{35}TheValuyevCommission—a commission set up to inquire into the state of
agriculture in Russia and headed by tsarist Minister P. A.Valyuev.

In 1872 and 1873, it collected extensive material on the state of
agriculture in Russia following the 1861 Reform, and this was published in
a book entitledReport of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the
Present State of Agriculture and Agricultural Productivity in Russia,
St. Petersburg, 1873.

p. 57

{36}A general strike in support of the demand for universal suffrage put
forward in Parliament by representatives of the Labour, and Democratic
parties. The strike involved over 300,000 workers, who staged
demonstrations throughout the country. However, when Parliament rejected
the Bill and troops fired on the demonstrators, the opportunist leadership
of the Labour Party (Vandervelde and others) capitulated and, under the
pressure of their “allies” from the cam p of the liberal bourgeoisie,
called off the general strike. The defeat of the working class in Belgium
in April 1902 was a lesson for the working-class movement of the world.

p. 61

{37}Vestnik Russkoi Revolutsii. Sotsialno-politicheskoye
obozreniye(Herald of the Russian Revolution. Socio-Political
Review)—an illegal magazine published in Paris and Geneva from 1901 to
1905. Four issues appeared. From No. 2 on it was a theoretical organ of the
Socialist-Revolutionary Party.

p. 62

{38}A reference to the following remark by L. Martov at the Zurich
conference of theIskraEditorial Board on April 2 (15), 1902:
“We should emphasise and bring out the reactionary character of the demand
for the nationalisation of the land in Russia at the present moment.”

Afterthe Zurich conference, Lenin made several changes in Chapter VII,
which deals with the demand for the nationalisation of the land (see
present edition, Vol. 6, pp. 139–42).

p. 63

{39}A reference to the following remark by L. Martov: “It must be said
instead that we accept the nationalisation of the land only as an immediate
prelude to the socialisation of all the means of production.”

p. 64

{40}A reference to rewards given by the government of Charles X to former
émigrés whose lands were confiscated and sold as national
property during the French bourgeois revolution at the end of theeighteenth century. The law on compensation adopted on March 27, 1825,
provided for pecuniary rewards totalling 1,091,360,000 francs (the
“émigré billion”). Members of the royal retinue got the
biggest rewards. To obtain this vast sum of money, the government increased
taxes and converted the 5 per cent state rent to 3 per cent.

p. 66

{41}A reference to Plekhanov’s remark on the following part of the article:
“But why confine oneself to this source? Why not try, in addition, to
return to the people at least part of the tribute which yesterday’s
slave-owners extracted, and are still extracting, from the peasants with
the assistance of the police state?” (See present edition, Vol. 6,
p. 144.) Plekhanov wrote: “That is the only thing that should be proposed,
and not charity. Only those who received the amounts can be expected to
return them:the gentry.”

p. 66

{42}A reference to the following remark by L. Martov: “This proposition is
wrong. Freedom to demand a separate plot flowspreciselyfrom the
freedom to dispose of the land. It is enough to point out instead that the
transformation of the power of the commune over the individual into the
power of an association over the member who joins on his own accord is not
ruled out by our demands.”

Afterthe Zurich conference, Lenin crossed out both sentences in the
original and wrote instead: “This objection would be ground less” ending
with “put up for sale by a fellow member”

(p.67).

p. 67